DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, in lines 8-9, recited language “the leveling component and the latch mechanism are arranged in parallel” is indefinite because it is unclear if the “latch mechanism” is part of the claimed invention or not. For example, in the preamble, line 4, “for accommodating a latch mechanism” is clear that the latch mechanism is not positively recited as part of the claimed invention and only requires the container door comprises a “receiving space” capable of accommodating the latch mechanism. However, in lines 8-9, the claim positively requires that the leveling component is parallel to the latch mechanism. Clarification and/or correction of the claim is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikkelsen (5,957,292) in view of Ohnuki (US 2011/0100870).
PNG
media_image1.png
694
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mikkelsen discloses a holding device for a top-opening substrate container, the top-opening substrate container comprising a container body (20) and a container door structure (36), the container door structure configured to be combined with the container body, the container door structure comprising a receiving space for accommodating a latch mechanism (60); the holding device comprising at least one leveling component, disposed in the receiving space, the leveling component globally extending and pressing against two opposite inner walls of the container door structure, wherein the leveling component and the latch mechanism are arranged in parallel (see figure above). Mikkelsen does not disclose an ear section of the container door structure, as required. However, Ohnuki discloses door structure comprising locking/latch mechanism (80) extending in an interior space of the door (see figure 21), wherein the door structure further comprises an ear section/door guides (63) used for easy attachment and removal of the door structure/transportation position for the container door structure (see [0104]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mikkelsen having ear section/door guides as taught by Ohnuki for easy attachment and removal of the door structure. After Mikkelsen is modified by Ohnuki the door guides/ear sections will be disposed adjacent to the leveling components.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikkelsen (5,957,292) and Ohnuki (US 2011/0100870) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kurikawa (WO 2006035894).
Mikkelsen further discloses the leveling elements is a rib integral to a door, which an overall height is less than a total depth of a receiving space of the door by the fact that a closing panel (77) appears to be flush with a sidewall of the door structure (see figure above). Mikkelsen further discloses the door is formed from multiple components, wherein those components could be made from carbon fiber filled nylon or polycarbonate (see column 5 lines 28-32). Mikkelsen does not explicitly disclose the leveling component is from carbon material. However, Kurikawa discloses a substrate container comprising a container body (3) and a lid (4) formed from a resin material, preferably polycarbonate, and wherein the resin is mixed with carbon to provide conductivity (see [0026]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mikkelsen having the lid made from polycarbonate material mixed with carbon as taught by Kurikawa for structural strength of the lid and to provide conductivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed. No prior art discloses combination of structures for a holding assembly as required in claim 1. No prior art discloses combination of structure of a holding device as recited in claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15 and 16 have been considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAFAEL A. ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
RAFAEL A. ORTIZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3736
/RAFAEL A ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights